The patch titled
Subject: drivers/base/memory.c: cache memory blocks in xarray to accelerate lookup
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
drivers-base-memoryc-cache-memory-blocks-in-xarray-to-accelerate-lookup.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/drivers-base-memoryc-cache-memory-blocks-in-xarray-to-accelerate-lookup.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/drivers-base-memoryc-cache-memory-blocks-in-xarray-to-accelerate-lookup.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott Cheloha <cheloha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: drivers/base/memory.c: cache memory blocks in xarray to accelerate lookup
Searching for a particular memory block by id is an O(n) operation because
each memory block's underlying device is kept in an unsorted linked list
on the subsystem bus.
We can cut the lookup cost to O(log n) if we cache each memory block
in an xarray. This time complexity improvement is significant on
systems with many memory blocks. For example:
1. A 128GB POWER9 VM with 256MB memblocks has 512 blocks. With this
change memory_dev_init() completes ~12ms faster and walk_memory_blocks()
completes ~12ms faster.
Before:
[ 0.005042] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
[ 0.021591] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
[ 0.022699] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
[ 0.038730] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-511
After:
[ 0.005057] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
[ 0.009415] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
[ 0.010519] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
[ 0.014135] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-511
2. A 256GB POWER9 LPAR with 256MB memblocks has 1024 blocks. With
this change memory_dev_init() completes ~88ms faster and
walk_memory_blocks() completes ~87ms faster.
Before:
[ 0.252246] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
[ 0.395469] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
[ 0.409413] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
[ 0.433028] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-511
[ 0.433094] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
[ 0.500244] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 131072-131583
After:
[ 0.245063] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
[ 0.299539] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
[ 0.313609] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
[ 0.315287] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-511
[ 0.315349] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
[ 0.316988] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 131072-131583
3. A 32TB POWER9 LPAR with 256MB memblocks has 131072 blocks. With
this change we complete memory_dev_init() ~37 minutes faster and
walk_memory_blocks() at least ~30 minutes faster. The exact timing
for walk_memory_blocks() is missing, though I observed that the
soft lockups in walk_memory_blocks() disappeared with the change,
suggesting that lower bound.
Before:
[ 13.703907] memory_dev_init: adding blocks
[ 2287.406099] memory_dev_init: added all blocks
[ 2347.494986] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
[ 2527.625378] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
[ 2707.761977] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
[ 2887.899975] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
[ 3068.028318] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
[ 3248.158764] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
[ 3428.287296] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
[ 3608.425357] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
[ 3788.554572] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
[ 3968.695071] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
[ 4148.823970] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
After:
[ 13.696898] memory_dev_init: adding blocks
[ 15.660035] memory_dev_init: added all blocks
(the walk_memory_blocks traces disappear)
There should be no significant negative impact for machines with few
memory blocks. A sparse xarray has a small footprint and an O(log n)
lookup is negligibly slower than an O(n) lookup for only the smallest
number of memory blocks.
1. A 16GB x86 machine with 128MB memblocks has 132 blocks. With this
change memory_dev_init() completes ~300us faster and walk_memory_blocks()
completes no faster or slower. The improvement is pretty close to noise.
Before:
[ 0.224752] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
[ 0.227116] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
[ 0.227183] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
[ 0.227183] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-131
After:
[ 0.224911] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
[ 0.226935] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
[ 0.227089] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
[ 0.227089] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-131
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200121231028.13699-1-cheloha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Scott Cheloha <cheloha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rick Lindsley <ricklind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/base/memory.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/base/memory.c~drivers-base-memoryc-cache-memory-blocks-in-xarray-to-accelerate-lookup
+++ a/drivers/base/memory.c
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/stat.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/xarray.h>
#include <linux/atomic.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
@@ -56,6 +57,13 @@ static struct bus_type memory_subsys = {
.offline = memory_subsys_offline,
};
+/*
+ * Memory blocks are cached in a local radix tree to avoid
+ * a costly linear search for the corresponding device on
+ * the subsystem bus.
+ */
+static DEFINE_XARRAY(memory_blocks);
+
static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(memory_chain);
int register_memory_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
@@ -553,20 +561,14 @@ int __weak arch_get_memory_phys_device(u
/* A reference for the returned memory block device is acquired. */
static struct memory_block *find_memory_block_by_id(unsigned long block_id)
{
- struct device *dev;
+ struct memory_block *mem;
- dev = subsys_find_device_by_id(&memory_subsys, block_id, NULL);
- return dev ? to_memory_block(dev) : NULL;
+ mem = xa_load(&memory_blocks, block_id);
+ if (mem)
+ get_device(&mem->dev);
+ return mem;
}
-/*
- * For now, we have a linear search to go find the appropriate
- * memory_block corresponding to a particular phys_index. If
- * this gets to be a real problem, we can always use a radix
- * tree or something here.
- *
- * This could be made generic for all device subsystems.
- */
struct memory_block *find_memory_block(struct mem_section *section)
{
unsigned long block_id = base_memory_block_id(__section_nr(section));
@@ -609,9 +611,16 @@ int register_memory(struct memory_block
memory->dev.offline = memory->state == MEM_OFFLINE;
ret = device_register(&memory->dev);
- if (ret)
+ if (ret) {
put_device(&memory->dev);
-
+ return ret;
+ }
+ ret = xa_err(xa_store(&memory_blocks, memory->dev.id, memory,
+ GFP_KERNEL));
+ if (ret) {
+ put_device(&memory->dev);
+ device_unregister(&memory->dev);
+ }
return ret;
}
@@ -669,6 +678,8 @@ static void unregister_memory(struct mem
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(memory->dev.bus != &memory_subsys))
return;
+ WARN_ON(xa_erase(&memory_blocks, memory->dev.id) == NULL);
+
/* drop the ref. we got via find_memory_block() */
put_device(&memory->dev);
device_unregister(&memory->dev);
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from cheloha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx are
drivers-base-memoryc-cache-memory-blocks-in-xarray-to-accelerate-lookup.patch
